Even a cursory reading of Paul’s epistles to Timothy and Titus makes it clear that their work involved a wide variety of communicative purposes. They were to instruct, teach, rebuke, urge, charge, guard the truth, remind, rightly handle the word, correct opponents, convince, exhort, and so forth. The list is long. It should not be assumed now, any more than then, that all of these activities are restricted to the Sunday sermon. . . .
Read MoreFROM THE ARCHIVE
This discussion is the second and concluding article reviewing the book by Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism.1 A brief evaluation of what his book offers to the overall discussion of science and religion will follow. His primary theme, which he mentions several times throughout, is there is superficial conflict, but deep concord, between science and religion, and superficial concord, but deep conflict, between science and naturalism. Consequently, according to Plantinga the real source of the disagreement is between religion and naturalism. To be clear, Plantinga’s point is the atheism of Dawkins, Dennett, and others with their trash talk about theism makes the mistake that must be addressed. It is not that science is opposed to theism, so much as is naturalism. Plantinga argues these “super atheists” have taken science and have tried to argue it supports naturalism, when, in fact, it does not.
PART III
Read MoreThe assignment for this article is to examine the argument made by Alvin Plantinga regarding where the disagreement really lies in the overall discussion on the question of God and God’s existence with science and naturalism. Plantinga, a theist, wants to clarify where the real controversy is, from the perceived controversy. Reading through his treatment, he discusses the possible conflicts that may or may not exist between science and religion. This review, the first of two installments, considers Plantinga’s position and offers an evaluation.
Certain Preliminary Matters and His Main Theses
Plantinga considers the real source of the problem to be between theism and naturalism.1 However, before serious consideration can be given, one must understand what Plantinga means by theism, science, and naturalism.
The conversion of Saul of Tarsus provides an unanswerable argument for Christianity. Charles R. Erdman says, “The conversion of Saul of Tarsus . . . forms, indeed, one of the strongest arguments in support of belief in . . . the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (100). This affirmation that the conversion of Saul (Paul) “forms one of the strongest arguments” in support of the historic resurrection of Jesus and, as a result, is itself proof of the Christian faith was the thesis of George Lyttleton in his classic volume on the conversion of Paul first published anonymously in 1747 when Lyttleton was thirty-eight years of age. Lyttleton was educated at Oxford, entered Parliament, and advanced to the position of lord, commissioner of the treasury. He admitted there were those who tried to shake his faith in the Christian religion, and T. T. Biddolph said that he, along with Gilbert West, had imbibed the principle of skepticism (Campbell 353-54). However, Lyttleton examined the reality of Christianity, and he deserted his unbelief because of a thorough examination which terminated in the production of his well-known dissertation on Saul’s conversion (Mitchell 341-42).
Read More